Beef: Even Worse Than We Thought
We all know that beef production is one of the most environmentally destructive things that humans do. A new report from Robert Goodland shows that, despite our awareness of this severity, we have still underestimated the negative impact of beef on global ecosystems. The most staggering finding is that, whereas analysts have traditionally pegged the global warming potential (GWP) of methane emitted from livestock at 21-23 times more potent than carbon, Goodland says it’s more like 72.
The gist of Goodland’s report is an attack on both the Food and Agriculture Organization and the Center for Investigative Reporting, both which have downplayed the significance of the global warming numbers. CIR, for example, has written that “Grass-fed beef does less damage to the environment.” Goodland, however, cites evidence to the contrary, arguing that grass fed cows emit 400 percent more methane than grain fed cows, a factor that helps make grass-fed beef a more climate changing product than conventionally produced grain fed beef.
It’s worth noting that Goodland, with Jeff Anhang, argue strictly from an environmental perspective. To my knowledge, they do not engage the dominant ethical questions inherent in eating animals, or spend much time debating strategies of reform. That said, they explicitly endorse reduction of meat eating as a viable way to aid the recovery of global ecosystems. “Our analysis,” writes Goodland, “explains that reducing 25 percent of today’s livestock products with better alternatives could almost fully meat international climate treaty objectives.” They admit that their recommendation is “restrained” compared to other climate experts who have “recommended vegetarianism to reverse climate change.”
Forget vegetarianism. These numbers demand that we work toward veganism. Global demand for meat is expected to increase by 68 percent in the next 15 years. Given the numbers that Goodland has unleashed, this is an absolutely terrifying prospect. The only solace one might take is that each and every one of us has the power to help change this situation by reducing and eventually giving up the habit of eating all animal products, while encouraging others—by any means necessary— to do the same.
Sadly, the conclusion most meat eaters will draw from this is to eat more chicken and fish. If people heed the message in order to protect the environment, more sentient beings will be made to suffer and die. What a tragedy that to save the earth they’ll wind up making this world a much more horrific place for chickens.
The ethical argument has a long and strong track record of attracting no more than about 1% of the population to eat no animal products. Maybe if veteran ethicists were willing to see the environmental argument as the key ethical argument that it is, they could start improving on their 1% record. Certainly Robert Goodland has strongly promoted considering other animal products to be as harmful as beef; e.g., see his presentation in Beijing at thttp://awellfedworld.org/sites/awellfedworld.org/files/pdf/GoodlandChinaSpeech2011.pdf
sorry, correct link is http://awellfedworld.org/sites/awellfedworld.org/files/pdf/GoodlandChinaSpeech2011.pdf
Minor typo in last paragraph. You wrote “meet” instead of “meat”
Fascinating piece, and yet another well-written article on why meat and dairy cannot be part of a sustainable diet. Even non-AR organizations like Oxfam and the UN recognize this, yet the message is drowned out by government and Big Ag interests. I just heard an animal law attorney speak re: local, organic and grass-fed meats and their impact on the planet. You can read more about her work and why they are just as destructive (if not more so) to our planet than factory farming on my blog at http://righteouschickpea.blogspot.com/2012/08/whats-wrong-with-grass-fed-local-and.html
Your piece is excellent. I hope it gets a lot of attention, as you cover some really important ground.
-james
For someone bright enough to do this complicated scientific research correctly and bold enough to bring the FAO and CIR to task for minimizing the catastrophe that is global warming, Mr. Goodland sure is tentative in his recommendations for averting disaster.
I read the report you cited, James, went to the website http://www.chompingclimatechange.org that he endorses, watched the short video that explains how to reverse climate change before it’s too late, and came away wishing he would change his tepid “may” to “must” and alter his timid 25% figure (replacing meat, dairy and eggs with substitute foods) to 100%.
It’s as if he is worried that the word or the implication of “sacrifice” will turn off too many folks, who put their taste buds and entrenched habits before the survival of the planet!
Also, I wish he would explain how wonderfully delicious the meat/dairy/egg alternatives are these days!
One thing I like is the website’s emphasis on planting trees — on the very land that’s currently occupied by livestock, which farmers have been deforesting at a mad pace. Reforestation accompanied by removing animals from that same space is definitely key.
I also appreciate that the Chomping Climate Change link to information on egg substitutes goes to a vegan website with great tips on which products go best in which recipes.
But the link to info on dairy substitutes should be changed: it goes to a blog that’s five years old, and since then so many delicious alternatives to dairy milk, yogurt, ice cream, cheese, sandwich spreads and butter have hit the fridge and freezer aisles of more and more grocery stores.
Closing on a high note, I’m grateful I now have a way to reply intelligently to the oft-heard justification for meat-eating: “Why didn’t the methane from those millions of buffalo roaming America’s plains hundreds of years ago cause global warming?” To find the answer, go to: http://www.chompingclimatechange.org/uploads/8/0/6/9/8069267/livestock_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions.pdf
CQ, it’s great to see the diligence and high notes in your review of Chomping Climate Change. I only wish that your diligence hadn’t concluded with such selective quotations of Dr. Goodland’s work. He has specified that at least 25% of anthropogenic GHGs are needed merely to fulfill international climate treaty objectives. That was a figure first written into an article that he co-authored for Worldwatch, which asked him to peg his analysis to climate treaty objectives. The video that you’ve cited uses “may” to correspond with standard scientific language relating to uncertainty. It also says this, which unfortunately your review chose to omit: “By replacing meat, eggs, and dairy products with better alternatives, we can chomp climate change if we want to!”
I didn’t intend to selectively quote, World watcher. Indeed, I thought I had carefully read every portion of Chomp Climate Change. Apparently not. My apologies.
Going back to it again, I see, staring me in the face on the home page, that 25% figure. It’s scattered throughout the website. I will take your word for it that the sentence you quote — which I did not PURPOSELY omit — is in the video. But if I may say so, even that is a tame way to issue a warning.
One could say that Dr. Goodland indicts himself when he writes: “Our recommendation is restrained compared to that of Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the seminal Stern Review on the economics of climate change, who have recommended vegetarianism to reverse climate change. Yet their recommendation shares in common with the CIR report an implication that there’s a sacrifice to be made in avoiding any amount of meat consumption. The real issue is not about taking meat away. Rather, it’s about seeing whether it can be replaced with better foods, thereby improving people’s lives.”
To me, the real issue IS about saying sayonara to animal flesh and animal eggs and animal milk-based products. And, at the same time, it’s about introducing people to luscious substitute foods that don’t ruin the planet.
I guess I’m just not familiar or comfortable with the restrained tone of “standard scientific language relating to uncertainty.” I feel that the world needs well-respected experts like Dr. Goodland to be bold and daring in their assertions. And I don’t mean scare tactics. Just plain-as-day, unvarnished truth.
Speaking of comfort, have you read Dr. Richard Oppenlander’s incredibly well-researched book on this subject? Its title, COMFORTABLY UNAWARE: GLOBAL DEPLETION AND FOOD RESPONSIBILITY . . . WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO EAT IS KILLING OUR PLANET, is, in my view, a welcome, and needed, wake-up call. (As is the content.)
One can only hope that a combination of all approaches, from scientists’ standard soft-pedaling to environmental and animal activists’ forthright statements, will result in a massive shift in public consciousness. Each of us has the capacity to move from ignorant, apathetic, or arrogant to aware, engaged, and humble. I’m counting on that happening — rather than the alternative, spelled out in Jared Diamond’s book, COLLAPSE, which I’m reading now, belatedly.
CQ, you don’t have to take my word for the sentence that I’ve quoted – as it’s the concluding sentence of the Chomping Climate Change video, so it’s somewhat hard to miss.
Anyway, the 25% prescription relating to meeting international climate treaty objectives forms less than 1% of the material on the Chomping Climate Change website – which more prominently features Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang’s analysis that uniquely ascribes at least 51% of human-caused greenhouse gas to the lifecycle and supply chain of livestock products.
If you’re “successful” in indicting Dr. Goodland, then the world will be left with the FAO’s estimate that 18% of human-caused greenhouse gas is attributable to livestock products – and the FAO recently formed a partnership with the meat industry, so I’m not sure that’s really where you want to go.
Activists are practically expected to say that the real issue is saying sayonara to livestock products, and then seeing what scientific information is available to support that. But for scientists to be optimally credible, they’re expected to start with what the scientific information says, and then see what that might imply.
In the particular case of livestock and climate change, there are thousands of activists keen to say sayonara to livestock products – but only two scientists whose climatic analysis support those activists’ objectives, and those are Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. So it’s probably more important that they maintain scientific credibility – for your own purposes – than that they become activists, which could risk leaving no credible climatic analysis to support activists’ purposes.
Anyway, the primary figure is the 51% estimate by Goodland and Anhang, as it represents the key conclusion of their assessment of livestock and climate change. Conversely, the 25% figure is a secondary figure, as it simply aims to estimate what amount of livestock GHG mitigation is needed to achieve replacement to international climate treaty objectives, should other efforts fail.
In a full set of scientific conversations on this topic, one might consider what would happen should other efforts succeed — or whether international climate treaty objectives are sufficiently or insufficiently ambitious — or whether to advocate to individuals open to change their diet because of climate change that their change be 100%, if only to offset the omission of any dietary change by others. So under certain scenarios, it could be correct that the 25% figure is too restrained, but not under other scenarios.
Yet the capacity of Goodland and Anhang is limited, so they can’t explore all possible scenarios. Indeed, they have their work cut out for them just to keep focusing on their 51% analysis — which happens to be their area of true expertise. So it makes sense to look to others, such as Richard Oppenlander, for conversations on other scenarios.
I’m not sure of everything that Richard Oppenlander says, but I’ve seen him toggle back and forth between FAO’s 18% estimate and the Goodland/Anhang 51% figure. So to be fair, perhaps you should indict him too for being overly restrained, or overly confusing. Or perhaps you could more evenly distribute your recognition of various contributions to relevant conversations.
Yes, I’m familiar with the 51% and have quoted it frequently on many blogs and in comments under online articles.
In fact, when the FAO’s “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report came out, indicating (not “indicting”
) that the effect of livestock on climate change was a mere 18%, I kindly badgered (yes, it really was kindly!) a journalist friend who writes for a major international newspaper. After my second email, he agreed to look into it and, sure enough, he did a great writeup.
Since you explain the Chomping Climate Change website, World watcher, maybe you could consider rewriting the parts that the average reader sees first, so that it wouldn’t leave me with the 25% figure dancing in my head?
If I had heard Dr. Oppenlander mention 18% after the 51% report came out, I certainly would’ve asked him about it.
I meant to say, “Since you explain the Chomping Climate Change website so thoroughly ….”
“By any means necessary.” That phrase, evoking memories of Malcolm X, would seem to require another blog just in itself! I look forward to hearing what you might consider necessary to encourage others to give up the habit of eating animal products.
Keith,
Perhaps I should have said “by any non-violent means necessary,” which would be more accurate.
-james
Yesterday’s Animal Blawg by Seth Victor, “Why our modern lifestyle spells disaster,” is worth reading, as is the comment below it: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/why-our-modern-lifestyle-spells-disaster
[...] “Beef: Even Worse Than We Thought” from JamesMcWilliams.com [...]
[...] “Beef: Even Worse Than We Thought” from JamesMcWilliams.com [...]
I would eat a steak any day of the week before caging up domestic pets under the premise of “saving” them.